A raga (Sanskrit rāga राग,રાગ, literally "colour, hue" but also "beauty, melody"; also spelled raag, rag, ragam[1]) is one of the melodic modes used in Indian classical music.

It is a series of five or more musical notes upon which a melody is made. In the Indian musical tradition, rāgas are associated with different times of the day, or with seasons. Indian classical music is always set in a rāga. Non-classical music such as popular Indian film songs and ghazals sometimes use rāgas in their compositions.

The music of India does not emphasize harmony and does not feature counterpoint. In fact, most Indian classical music features a single voice or instrument on the melody, accompanied by drone and percussion. There is no counterpoint and no chord progression at all. Instead, the interest and complexity of this music lies in its melodies and its rhythms. (Just as Indian music can seem confusing and static to someone accustomed to listening for harmonic progressions, Western melodies - based on only two types of scales - and Western rhythms - based on only a few popular meters - may sound overly similar and repetitive to someone accustomed to Indian music.)

Western music divides an octave into the twelve notes of the chromatic scale. But most pieces of music mainly use only seven of these notes, the seven notes of the major or minor key that the piece is in. Indian music also has an octave divided into twelve notes. These twelve notes are called swaras; they are not tuned like the notes of the chromatic scale (please see below). Also similarly to Western music, only seven notes are available for any given piece of music.

there is absolutely NO WAY he could blast out Oh Darling or I Got A Feeling or Twist & Shout,

and John and Paul have both said they ruined their singing voices in the process, John had to scream the lyrics into the microphone, because his voice was shot from singing the whole day, and he has said that his throat was sore and it hurt when he swallowed for two weeks after the fact. Paul has a similar story, he was completely hoarse after practicing and shouting the lyrics all day to get the perfect take.

even so i don't think you can see how illogical this is, just because george isn't singing lead vocal on certain songs, doesn't mean that he couldn't sing or that he couldn't sing rockers as well as the others. George had a very unique voice, so did John and so did Paul. this proves absolutely nothing.

so now it's 'john and paul ruined their singing voices with the beatles?'lolyears later john went on to sing 'woman'and paul went on to sing 'maybe im amazed' . . you hear that string of pretty sounding high notes paul sings quietly in 'maybe im amazed?' george never sang like that . . before . . . after . . . EVERgeorge harrison isn't/wasn't a born songbird like that, he himself knew itif you love his voice that's great

but it's like -once again - you're only arguing to be right - cutting and clipping what is a raga and who said/sang what when . . . 'obviously' this and 'obviously' that--please brother:

george could sing, he could play the guitar he wrote fantastic songs and melodies, deep compositions.

that he wasn't singing lead vocal in twist and shout proves absolutely nothing. for the others here to keep suggesting this is undeniable truth is illogical and just plain silly.

"The first album was recorded in one long twelve-hour session. The last song to be done was called 'Twist and Shout,' which nearly killed me. I was always bitterly ashamed of it, because I could sing it better than that. But now it doesn't bother me. You can hear I'm just a frantic guy, doing his best."

john lennon said those words.

it is well known that paul mccartney deliberately sang himself hoarse to get the right feel for the vocals in Oh Darling.

Quote

from wikipedia : Twist and Shout - The Beatles Version..."Twist and Shout", with John Lennon on lead vocals, was the last song recorded; producer George Martin knew Lennon's voice would suffer from the performance, so he left it until last, with only 15 minutes of scheduled recording time remaining.

Lennon was suffering from a cold, and was drinking milk and sucking on cough drops to soothe his throat. His coughing is audible on the album, as is the cold's effect on his voice. Even so, he produced a memorable vocal performance: a raucous, dynamic rocker. He later said his voice was not the same for a long time afterward, and that "every time [he] swallowed, it felt like sandpaper".[2]

A second take was attempted, but Lennon had nothing left and it was abandoned.[3] George Martin said, "I did try a second take ... but John's voice had gone."[4]

I bowing out of this now, for the sake of sanity I pronounce you right 7 of 13

well nimrod it's not so much that i disagree with you... and make no mistake about it, i do strongly disagree with the unqualified george bashing going on upon in this thread, it's just that this idea of being a good singer or not, or being a good rock and roll singer or not is poorly defined. but i will give you this, i was wrong about george singing the most rockers on stage, he apparently sang his fair share, and many will agree that john had the stronger voice.

george martin was the expert on these things.....he says on the anthology when he was deciding who was going to be lead singer in the band...."there was john....paul.....george-well,maybe not so strong as the other two......"i'm going to make this my last post on this thread too,i feel as though this is carrying something on that is not going to reach any conclusion.but sometimes people knock pauls' voice and this amazes me....perhaps 7 of 13 just really admires georges' voice and will hear nothing said against it.with that being the case then it's a waste of time posting even logical points to suggest anything like georges' voice wasn't so strong as the other two (which it plainly wasn't;sorry 7 of 13).i can judge well with my own ears but i'm going to agree with sir george martin that mr harrisons' voice was not as strong as john or pauls.and that has been MY personal point since the very start of the thread.

Logged

......."but tonight,i just wanna stay in,and be with you"..............

george martin was the expert on these things.....he says on the anthology when he was deciding who was going to be lead singer in the band...."there was john....paul.....george-well,maybe not so strong as the other two......"

thank you glassonion. there it is right there.. george was a competent and professional singer, and his singing was good enough and his voice strong enough, to be considered for the lead singer of the band, during recording sessions as soon as Sir George Martin got his hands on the thing. georges voice was more subtle, more sardonic, if that's even measurable or realistic.

I'm a great George fan, I really love his work being a Beatle and most of his solo-stuff too. But in fact: he was not a brilliant singer in a way guys like Ray Charles, John, Paul or someone like the great Aretha Franklin was. But it's also wrong saying he was a bad singer, he was NOT!!!!!Listen to the Beatles harmony vocals, he was very important for the classical Beatles-vocal-sound. Best example is the acapella version of Because (Anthalogy 3), in Germany one say's "I'm getting goose-pickels listening to that", I don't know the english equivalent to that, but I'm shure you will know What I mean: he was a excellent harmony singer, he also proved that later with "The Traveling Wilburies" !!I think the quality of his solo singing depends on the songs: "Something" for example features great singing of George, strong feelings!!!!!!Other songs remain kind of pale like "You like me too much" on Help and others.Anyway, I love George, he's may favorite Beatle, although John and Paul always were the better singers, but in fact : I love them all!The Beatles are the biggest band ever!

Best example is the acapella version of Because (Anthalogy 3), in Germany one say's "I'm getting goose-pickels listening to that", I don't know the english equivalent to that, but I'm shure you will know

The voices were still triple tracked there. It might not be the best example. I do agree with you though that George was a great background/harmony singer. Nobody said he was a bad singer anyways.

I've been reading almost every comment people have written about this topic and I've been wanting to comment myself for a while and now I decided I'm going to.I really love George's voice,it's my second favorite with John being the first.I also like George's solo work because I think his voice is beautiful.Some comments on here are about which songs George could'nt have sang as good as John and Paul and I can agree with that because the song wasn't meant for him anyways for obvious reasons.We all know that John or Paul could'nt have sang as good for George's songs either,I wanted to point that out and others here have as well.Let's say they took a song that was originally either one of theirs and had the other two sang it and compared which version was best,they'd all be good but depending on the feel the song was meant to be they all have their diferent ranges because everyone has diferent voices of course.I know I'm just stating the obvious but it's sort of hard for me to put my thoughts on this topic into words.I'm totally not trying to offend George because I love him but I kind of agree with Nimrod that he was limited in singing.The space between the limits of his singing though is absolutely beautiful and I love George's voice so much